|Home||blog.alor.org||Newtimes Survey||The Cross-Roads||Library|
|OnTarget Archives||The Social Crediter Archives||NewTimes Survey Archives||Brighteon Video Channel||Veritas Books|
12 May 1972. Thought for the Week: "Anyone who has carefully observed life in the countryside, as compared with life in the towns, knows that we have not torn up the roots of capitalism and have not undermined the foundation, the basis of the internal enemy. The latter depends on small-scale production, and there is only one-way of undermining it; namely, to place the economy of the country, including agriculture, on a new technical basis, the technical basis of large-scale production."
Lenin, "Selected Works", Vol. 8.
THE BATTLE FOR BRITAIN TO GO ON
Mr. Eric Butler sent the following lengthy report at the conclusion of his British tour.
Yesterday, May 2 will go down as one of the blackest days in British history. But it was to me also a day of great hope. As the flippantly ruthless Rippon summed up the crucial debate on the Bill to apply the guillotine to the debate on the European Communities Bill, a man shouted from the House of Commons gallery, "You have tricked and cheated our people." One headline reads this morning (May 3), "Heath over last big fence to Europe." But will the British people accept this view? I do not believe it.
The press this morning made little or no reference to the fact that yesterday afternoon a petition of 760,000 signatures was delivered to 10 Downing Street to be presented to the Queen. The numbers were not enormous as we gathered in perfect spring weather under Clive of India's figure to witness the preliminary organising of the presentation of the petition. But they had come from far and wide. Their faces were brave. I was deeply moved to see an elderly lady carrying he Union Jack and her sign that read, "Do not betray the Commonwealth. " She said to me, "Perhaps it is only my generation which remembers what the British family of nations has given to the world." The significance of this remark struck me forcefully when in front of 10 Downing Street I heard one of the anti-Marketeers attempting to answer a young Australian sightseer, who had asked with obvious astonishment, "But why are you against the Common Market?" No doubt that young man had been influenced by that powerful propaganda that had insisted that British entry into the EEC was "inevitable", and that the British people favoured it.
The Chairman of the Petition Committee was the great British historian, Sir Arthur Bryant. I was privileged to have a brief conversation with Sir Arthur, an elderly man who is far from well, but who fights on to preserve that history which he has so brilliantly portrayed in his books. We mentioned the Australian cricket tour and I said jokingly as he had to move on, "I wonder if cricket will be permitted if Britain becomes part of the EEC?" He smiled and said, "Yes, an interesting question."
Prominent in all of yesterday's activities was Air Vice-Marshal Donald Bennett, the former Queenslander of Pathfinder fame, during the Second World War. Refreshingly active and positive, Donald Bennett is the first Patron of the British League of Rights.
Following a briefing assembly at the Central Hall, a growing crowd them moved in an orderly manner to Parliament to lobby Members on the Guillotine Bill. As this peaceful group of British people moved past Westminster Cathedral I wondered whether there was perhaps some significance in the fact that the Cathedral was being given a face-lift. Patient and good-humoured, the police divided us into two groups before allowing us to enter the lobby - those with written appointments and those seeking appointments.
It was with obvious reluctance that some of the Members came out to meet their electors. I moved around listening to the many discussions. The ignorance of some of the Members was appalling. One Member did not even know that British education must come under the "harmonisation" laws of the European Economic Community. One Member complained in haughty tones that he objected to the manner in which electors were writing him. I felt like interrupting to say, "Are you not aware that you are supposed to be the paid servants of your electors!" I sat for a few minutes besides the elderly lady who told me fascinating stories of what she had learned as a telephonist at Buckingham Palace back in the days of King George V. She was a fervent admirer of King George V the King whom she believed tried to make a real stand against the dark forces working for the destruction of the British people.
As I left those magnificent buildings I thought of how so many of us around the British world were taught in our youth that here was the "Mother of Parliaments", the very heart of the system of democratic and representative Government. And yet now those elected to preserve it were voting to subordinate it to a growing army of Eurocrats across the Channel in Brussels. Shakespeare's famous words came to my mind, of how England was making a shameful conquest of itself, with "inky blots and rotten parchment bonds".
We returned to Central Hall and listened
to words which will prove just as historic as those of Churchill
when he said after Dunkirk that even if invaded, the British
would fight on the beaches, they would fight in the hills,
they would never give in. The Members of Parliament who came
spoke first, as they had to hurry back to the House of Commons
to cast their votes in an attempt to halt the Heath murder
of self-government. The young Conservative Member, Richard
Body, spoke first. A man's man, taking a stand when many of
his older colleagues have succumbed either to blackmail or
to inducements. He made the telling point that the Government
wanted to curb the debate, not because the valiant few - Enoch
Powell, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, and others, were all relentlessly
exposing just what the European Communities Bill really means
in terms of surrendering British sovereignty. He observed
that while he and his colleagues were presenting their in-depth
examination, the House of Commons was nearly empty. As Richard
Body said, many were too frightened even to listen in case
they had to admit the truth.
Richard Body made it clear that the fight would go on, irrespective of the vote in the House of Commons. Those present cheered. Here was the authentic voice. Then Mr. Douglas Jay, the man who lost his position as a Cabinet Minister in the Wilson Government because of his stand on the Common Market, presented a fantastic story of Parliament handing power to a group of officials to make regulations for the British people without British Parliament having any power to even examine the regulations. Some of the regulations have not yet even been translated into English! He asked those present how many knew that under the "harmonisation" regulations, no one in the United Kingdom would be able to drive a motor car more than fifteen years old?
Just before preparing this report Don Martin and I drove behind a beautifully kept Rolls Royce, which is at least 25 years old. All this is so much like something out of Alice in Wonderland that I am convinced that once the Eurocrats attempt to impose regulations like these in the United Kingdom, there will be hard-line resistance. Mr. Jay was followed by a Trade Union leader, who left no doubt that British trade unionists are not going to accept the EEC concept of moving workers from one part of the EEC to another. He predicted massive resistance and a specific direction to the Labor Party that there must be no more flirting with the Common Market myth. Then came a Conservative candidate who was cheered when he said that while the Treaty of Rome might say that once having joined the EEC, there could be no withdrawal, there was also the view of eminent British constitutionalists who insisted that in British law one Government could not bind in advance the policies of succeeding Governments.
But the loudest cheer followed the statement that the British people would be under no moral or constitutional obligation to obey regulations made in Brussels by non-elected officials. Air Vice-Marshal Bennett called for no-surrender, for a massive counter-attack. A woman in the audience, who had heard me speak at a recent meeting, appealed to me, "Can you give us a message?" I could only say, "You have heard my fellow-Australian, Don Bennett. When you were alone and in the eyes of most of the world, defeated after Dunkirk, we believed that you would fight on. We must stand together again."
I believe that Don Martin, National Director of the British League of Rights, has given the lead with his paraphrasing of Churchill." We will fight on. We will fight the enemy in the constituencies, in the market places, in the public halls. We will use every lawful measure to impose relentless pressure on our political servants. We will defy those enemy regulations that we do not accept as constitutional. No matter how long the battle, we will continue until victory is achieved. We will never, never give in."
So, while all the yes-men and superficial observers are claiming that the final battle on the Common Market was fought in House of Commons on Tuesday, May 2, I predict that the real battles are still ahead. As, of course, they are for the peoples of the civilised world everywhere. We are moving into that critical stage when every ounce of faith will be required by those who wish to stay the distance.
HISTORIC FIRST BRITISH LEAGUE OF RIGHTS DINNERThe first Annual British League of Rights Dinner, held in London on Friday, April 28, was an inspiring success. There were messages from all parts of the English-speaking world. First Patron of the British League of Rights, Australian-born Air Vice-Marshal Donald Bennett of Pathfinder fame, moved the loyal toast. Mr. Eric Butler was the guest of honour. Grace was said by Lady Birdwood. The toast to The British League of Rights was proposed in a most moving address by Mrs. Beatrice Palmer, editor of Housewives Today. A full report of this historic moment, together with photos, will appear in the June issue of the monthly journal, The New Times.
A FURTHER BROADSIDE AGAINST SEX EDUCATION IN SCHOOLS
We have received a communication from the two Christian ladies, disparagingly referred to by the mass media as "the two Melbourne grandmothers". Mrs. D.V. Dale, and Mrs. V.N. Veal are doing an absolutely tremendous job in the fight against this issue, termed Sex Education in schools; but it is more accurately described by one American expert on subversion as 'pornography in the classroom'. We are so impressed by this communication from these two ladies that we re-produce it in full:-
"The Australian Science Education Project
unit "Males and Females", devised to teach Sex Education to
mixed classes of 12 year olds and upwards, has brought forth
a storm of protest from all sections of the community. Owing
to the growing concern regarding declining moral standards
within the community, a MORAL GUIDANCE ORGANIZATION has been
formed. We are not a vocal minority, but a smothered majority,
according to many complaints from people who claim their letters
to the papers are never published.
We are not opposed to sex education in principle, but concerned as to how and by whom this is given. Morals are not a separate subject but an essential part of sex education, which is not the same as other studies. It is in a category all on its own and involves a moral and a religious problem. If teaching does not include responsibility, it teaches irresponsibility. Once a school is committed to this A.S.E.P. teaching, what happens to individual liberty?
It is the prerogative of parents to give instruction on this very vital subject, and there is a danger that some teachers could supersede the role of parents, and increase the generation gap. If this course is allowed to continue there are sure to be harmful repercussions. Who assumes responsibility? Is the public aware of the fact that 4 (four) year old children have been taught human reproduction in a Queensland kindergarten? Is this setting a precedent?
In the light of overseas trends the implications are serious. In the U.S.A. a movement known as Sex Information and Education Council of the United States (S.I.E.C.U.S.) has created widespread opposition because of its anti-moral and immoral connotations. Reports of similar sex education in England are just as bad. In these countries children are being taught anything from simple sexual information, to the inside details of homosexuality, masturbation, free-love experimentation, and contraception. We are not implying that A.S.E.P. intends to do the same here, but where will it lead?
Mrs. D. Sargent lecturer in Biology
at Melbourne University studied United States methods early
in 1971 to find out how the Americans launched sex education
in schools. She is now briefing Victorian teachers, and said
in "The Age" (Melbourne) article of 28th March, 1972,
There can be no higher standard than that which is revealed to us through THE WORD OF GOD, and on this we stand. The constitution of our country has also been based on this. Furthermore, we would like to know what standard has been used, and who set it up, when the evaluation of this course was undertaken. If no worthwhile standard was set up, the evaluation is - and will be, worthless! "
President: Mrs. B. N. Veal, 154 Smith
Street, THORNBURY 3071
ON TARGET BULLETIN
The Rule of Law
(contd.) The rule of law means that the individual, as well as government, is bound in all his actions by clearly defined rules announced beforehand. Road laws are a good example of the rule of law. Particularly since the advent of the motorcar, it has been most essential for road laws, which enable individuals to use a common service, to be designed to protect all individuals.
So far from the rule of law concerning the roads being an infringement on the rights of the individual, so long as there is general respect for that rule of law, it increases the rights of the individual. Individuals who insist that they should have the 'freedom' to drive how they like on the roads, would produce chaos. The rule of law as applied to the roads lays down that all shall travel on one side of the road; they shall stop at red lights, and proceed on green lights. If the motorist violates the rule of law, and is detected by the police, then he is penalised.
To the extent that motorists obey the rule of law there is the maximum security and freedom for all individuals using the roads. The sole responsibility of Government is to produce a rule of law, which has the respect of all members of the community. It is certainly not the correct function of government to insist on how individuals shall operate within the rule of law. As one individual has so aptly put it, "within the known rules of the game the individual is free to pursue his personal ends and desires."
|© Published by the Australian League of Rights, P.O. Box 27 Happy Valley, SA 5159|